The Labour Party of South Africa (Labour Party) has expressed disappointment with the High Court’s dismissal of its urgent application to halt President Cyril Ramaphosa’s National Dialogue, calling for a fresh election.

The party said that while the matter was found to be urgent, the Court declined to intervene, leaving serious constitutional questions unresolved for the party.

“This was a moment for the judiciary to defend our constitutional order against executive overreach. Instead, the Court stepped back, and we are left with an expensive, elitist talk-shop that the people never asked for and Parliament never approved,” said Labour Party interim president Joseph Mathunjwa.

Last month, the Labour Party launched an urgent High Court application to interdict Ramaphosa’s National Dialogue process, arguing that it was “unconstitutional, irrational, fiscally irresponsible", and excluded the working class.

The party seeks to halt all further implementation and expenditure, citing the duplication of existing democratic structures and the estimated R700-million to R800-million cost as unjustifiable in the current economic climate.

Mathunjwa explained that the party’s case was grounded in a defence of constitutional supremacy.

It argued that the National Dialogue “unlawfully” duplicated the role of Parliament and created a parallel governance structure that answers only to the Presidency.

Mathunjwa claimed that Ramaphosa’s decision to announce and fund the dialogue violated sections 213 and 215 of the Constitution and the principles of public accountability.

“We are told this is about unity. But unity without justice is merely overreach. This Dialogue is not about inclusion. It is about political damage control for a collapsing ruling elite that fears Parliament and fears the people,” he stated.

The Thabo Mbeki Foundation, Steve Biko Foundation, Chief Albert Luthuli Foundation, Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, and Strategic Dialogue Group intervened in the case, against the Labour Party.

“These foundations actually exposed themselves and show us who they really are. They claim the legacy of liberation, but they serve the agenda of those in power, for interests that are not aligned with the masses of South Africans who suffer under-unemployment, poverty and inequality”, Mathunjwa stated.

He argued that while the Court found that the President may have constitutional power to promote national unity, it did not make a final determination on the lawfulness of the Dialogue.

“…instead, it held that the Party had not shown sufficient harm to warrant urgent intervention. Part B of the case, namely the review application therefore remains pending. We never said the President can’t speak to the nation … but he must do so through the structures created by the Constitution, not through self-appointed panels and elite gatherings,” Mathunjwa stated.

He is doubtful that unity will be achieved through the National Dialogue.

“It will be achieved through employment. It will be achieved by reducing inequality, by investing in real services, and by using South Africa’s mineral wealth to create jobs, drive innovation and industrialise this country,” he said.

EXPOSURE OF ARROGANCE

Meanwhile, Mathunjwa said the court action was actually a victory, claiming that the party exposed the judiciary shielding executive power.

“Hence, we repeat our call for a constitutional amendment: the President must be elected by the people … and held accountable by the very same people. Our leaders must not be appointed through backroom deals and dirty party caucuses … and they must not be shielded from accountability by their rich friends,” he said.

He argued that R700-million could be better spent on changing the Constitution or to support victims of gender-based violence and rape.

“For the unemployed. For the broken public hospitals and schools. Not for an elite talk-shop to protect the status quo. We therefore renew our call … not for a Dialogue, but for a fresh election. A referendum. Then we will see who really cares about the people, and who merely cares about protecting those power,” he stated.

Mathunjwa said the party’s legal team was studying the judgment and would engage its structures to determine the best strategic response.